Comments on: Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: An Aside on the Fetish http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/ theory in the rough Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:23:58 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Fragment on Form and Content http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/comment-page-1/#comment-23280 Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Fragment on Form and Content Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:19:05 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/#comment-23280 [...] The passage suggests that there is a material content - use value - that is timeless and “true”, which comes in history to be covered over by arbitrary social “forms”, which are contingent and ephemeral. [...] [...] The passage suggests that there is a material content – use value – that is timeless and “true”, which comes in history to be covered over by arbitrary social “forms”, which are contingent and ephemeral. [...]

]]> By: Natural’s Not In It « Grundlegung http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/comment-page-1/#comment-20158 Natural’s Not In It « Grundlegung Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:40:28 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/#comment-20158 [...] An Aside on the Fetish [...] [...] An Aside on the Fetish [...]

]]> By: Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Human Labour in the Abstract http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/comment-page-1/#comment-19927 Roughtheory.org » Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 1: Human Labour in the Abstract Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:39:24 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/#comment-19927 [...] In my <a href="http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/" rel="nofollow">last post</a> in this series, I suggested that: <ul><li> the first chapter was driving toward the argument about commodity fetishism,</li> <li>significant aspects of the earlier sections of the chapter were intended to express <em>fetishised</em> forms of perception and thought, rather than Marx's own "position", and</li> <li>fetishised forms of perception involve the attribution of supersensible social qualities to material objects.</li></ul> [...] [...] In my last post in this series, I suggested that:

  • the first chapter was driving toward the argument about commodity fetishism,
  • significant aspects of the earlier sections of the chapter were intended to express fetishised forms of perception and thought, rather than Marx’s own “position”, and
  • fetishised forms of perception involve the attribution of supersensible social qualities to material objects.

[...]

]]> By: What in the hell … :: … is going with Lukacs? :: October :: 2007 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/comment-page-1/#comment-19887 What in the hell … :: … is going with Lukacs? :: October :: 2007 Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:32:40 +0000 http://www.roughtheory.org/content/capital_1d/#comment-19887 [...] the meantime, NP over at Rough Theory has a series of posts on Marx that folk should check out. When I get time I’m going to try and write a post here [...] [...] the meantime, NP over at Rough Theory has a series of posts on Marx that folk should check out. When I get time I’m going to try and write a post here [...]

]]>